Comments on: EPA, CCSP and Hurricaneshttps://climateaudit.org/2009/04/19/epa-ccsp-and-hurricanes/
by Steve McIntyreSun, 18 Feb 2018 00:19:15 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Bob Kosshttps://climateaudit.org/2009/04/19/epa-ccsp-and-hurricanes/#comment-182058
Mon, 18 May 2009 22:33:19 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5826#comment-182058I just downloaded the 2008 Atlantic Best tracks database from NHC. I compared it with the 2007 database and found 9 newly added storms in the period from 1921-1925. Part of their ongoing reanalysis I guess. About 185 tracks added with only an increase in ACE of about 15. A couple years the ACE actually decreased with added storms. They must have made numerous adjustments in wind speeds.
Here is a comparison of the storm counts.
]]>By: Rod Smithhttps://climateaudit.org/2009/04/19/epa-ccsp-and-hurricanes/#comment-182057
Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:10:46 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5826#comment-182057JohnT — “Now that you mention it, National Severe Storms Lab is in Norman Oklahoma is another bad idea. Its a silly notion that they have to ‘Be There’ to do their job.”

Unless the ol’ memory is failing, it was called the National Severe Weather Center several (4+?) decades ago and was located in Kansas City.

My coordination visit was so long ago that I don’t even remember the details any more, but the point is that this is a longstanding condition.

]]>By: JohnThttps://climateaudit.org/2009/04/19/epa-ccsp-and-hurricanes/#comment-182056
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:12:25 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5826#comment-182056Now that you mention it, National Severe Storms Lab is in Norman Oklahoma is another bad idea. Its a silly notion that they have to “Be There” to do their job.

I think that they just love the drama. But at what cost? Putting these facilities in Harms way means each needs to be built like Bunker, doubling or tripling the build and operating costs. Why go to the expense to make a facility and the supporting community and families disaster proof when all you have to do is plan ahead and build in a less disaster prone area. Its all about the Drama.

]]>By: JohnThttps://climateaudit.org/2009/04/19/epa-ccsp-and-hurricanes/#comment-182055
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:59:03 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5826#comment-182055I got a chuckle from the “For Sale, by Acme Realty CO.” sign in front of the National Hurricane Center building in comment #66 above. Then it stuck me what a bad idea the location was.
]]>By: JohnThttps://climateaudit.org/2009/04/19/epa-ccsp-and-hurricanes/#comment-182054
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:31:38 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5826#comment-182054I marvel at the stupidity of having the National Hurricane Center based in Miami, the Hurricane capital of the world! Using that logic we would create a National Tornado center in Kansas, A national Earthquake center in San Francisco, National Flood Center in New Orleans and lets give the National Volcano Center a front row seat at the base of Mauna Loa volcano.

You know its not about science or public safety, Its about egos and photo ops for an otherwise dull career.

ryanm: What is the inspiration for this weird comment? BTW, the National Severe Storms Lab is in Norman Oklahoma.

]]>By: David Smithhttps://climateaudit.org/2009/04/19/epa-ccsp-and-hurricanes/#comment-182053
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:43:10 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5826#comment-182053Re# 71 Robinedwards, send an e-mail to me ( mndsmith33 AT earthlink.net ) and I’ll send the spreadsheet to you.
]]>By: Robinedwardshttps://climateaudit.org/2009/04/19/epa-ccsp-and-hurricanes/#comment-182052
Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:41:54 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5826#comment-182052Re Dave Smith’s #66, I’ve been trying to reconstruct the original /numbers/ that underly Dave’s plot, so far without real success. One problem is that the x axis, though labelled, does not identify which of the ticks corresponds to which year. A heavy tick at 5 year intervals would be useful. Alternatively a direct reference to the source would be a great help. Any chance?

The extrapolations were of course jokes, but it would nevertheless be interesting to indicate the approximate confidence intervals, say 90%, for the the predictions. Confidence interval tend to shed some realistic illumination onto extrapolations in general.

It certainly is such a place. More chills and spills if one navigates the atmosphere in a flying machine, but not as terrifying as your city and country roads in a gasoline, carbon-dioxide generating machine.